Contextual Policy Transfer in Reinforcement Learning Domains via Deep Mixtures-of-Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In reinforcement learning, agents that consider the context, or current state, when selecting source policies for transfer have been shown to outperform context-free approaches. However, none of the existing approaches transfer knowledge contextually from model-based learners to a model-free learner. This could be useful, for instance, when source policies are intentionally learned on diverse simulations with plentiful data but transferred to a real-world setting with limited data. In this paper, we assume knowledge of estimated source task dynamics and policies, and common sub-goals but different dynamics. We introduce a novel deep mixture-of-experts formulation for learning state-dependent beliefs over source task dynamics that match the target dynamics using state trajectories collected from the target task. The mixture model is easy to interpret, demonstrates robustness to estimation errors in dynamics, and is compatible with most learning algorithms. We then show how this model can be incorporated into standard policy reuse frameworks, and demonstrate its effectiveness on benchmarks from OpenAI-Gym.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".